Hey guys. We are going to be talking hypotheticals today for all you Economy grinders and nerds out there.

Lets say there was a player who had two max level crop hopper farms and was bringing in $1million daily (figures not accurate). Now, this player decided that two farms just wasn't quite enough for them, as they had a rival they really wanted to beat to baltop. So, this guy decides that he is going to make a third farm, by buying his friend a minecraft account and telling that friend to run it on old laptop all under the friend's name, but with all the balance and farm funneling to the main player's account.

Would you consider this ethical? Is this balance fairly gained by the main player? Is this unfair to those who abide by the rules using only 2 accounts at once?

Let me know your thoughts!

 

So like having other players AFK your farm/profit shop like so many others have done?
Seems to comply with the rules.

 

More like trying to bypass the 2 alt limit by essentially controlling an account that may not belong to the player but essentially for all intents and purposes is owned by said player. And I also never asked if it was following the rules.

 

So you're claiming that players who had others afk their farm, even if they were getting something for doing that were breaking the rules?
I don't think so. That's just business. If it was an issue, I'm sure the mods would have done something about it.

 

No. There is a difference between people's choice to AFK at a farm as an active and participating player of the game and setting up 'third alts' under the alias of an IRL friend who cannot be confirmed.

 

There are numerous hypothetical situations that one could conceive that would be considered unethical or wrong and if they actually happen, then I assume the staff will act on it. Such as attempting to destroy all map arts server wide.
Oh, hang on, that's not hypothetical is it.

 

Neither is this thread! You got me there Drogo!

 

oh Cal, it's easy to get one up on you mate.

 

What? Also you are derailing the thread. Your off-topic posts (all of them) should be removed. We can discuss this further on Discord if you wish.

 

You seem confused Cal, They are completely on topic Cal.
But as a direct and unarguable reply to your question, no, The hypothetical situation complies with the rules and is therefore legitimate.

 

Not everything that fully complies to rules is legitimate however!

 

Wrong again.
Legitimate, in the sense you're using it, quite literally means "complying to the law or rules."

 

No, legitimate, in the sense that I’m using it, as shown by the last questions in the thread, more relates to is this ethical? Is this balance fairly gained by the main player? Is this unfair to those who abide by the rules using only 2 accounts at once?

 

Ethics and legitimacy are different things. You might want to sort out what it is you're trying to ask before you ask it.
I'm going to go play Skyblock now, while you go and do what ever it is you do these days.

 

Hope you spend your illegitimate balance well.

 

You're still clearly confused about that word. If you weren't you might be playing Skyblock now.

 

that seems like irl trading to me.

 

In Cal's make believe scenario, nothing is traded.

 

Person A: Gives (or leases) a minecraft account to person B
Person B: AFKs at person A's farm as payment
In the scenario, an IRL good was traded for a service in skyblock.

 

The minecraft account was given to someone without a minecraft account. It’s not possible to break the Skyblock IRL trading rule with someone who doesn’t have access to the server.
I guess it would be in real life trading, but that transaction would be done wholly in real life, so it’s fine.

Skyblock rules prohibit the trading of “in game items” for real life perks/items/money. No in game items are traded in this hypothetical situation.